The Persian Empire and Fortnite

A unique representation of the ancient world can be seen within the trending video game called Fortnite Battle Royale. In this video-game, users are given the ability to go to battle with other users, conquer land, and be the last one standing. This can be seen as a translation to the Persian Empire and its expansion over time.

The video game of Fortnite is historically accurate when compared to the conquering aspects of the Persian Empire. The Persians were very much known to be “borrowers,” in relation to the societies that they encountered. They took the most exceptional technologies and ideas from the cultures they discovered and molded them to technologies uniquely to their own. When conquering the land of Pasargadae, their advanced art and engineering was seen in elements of Egypt and Syria, which were thousands of miles away from Pasargadae. One example was the famous formal garden by the name of Paradesia. This was a state-of-the-art garden, known for its beautiful design and cutting-edge technology. With the very dry and hot environment, the architecture of the design allowed water to enter the basin every 16 yards. In the structural design, specific textures and shapes were used to harness the light. Such similar designs were seen in the building structures of Egypt the Asia minor. In Fortnite, players are able to use an ax to break down various structures for their material. For example, when they chop down a wooden bookshelf, they obtain more of the “wood material.” Then later on, they can construct their own fortress out of this same wood, or create a staircase to help them reach a location. This would be more useful for them in the game in comparison to a static bookshelf. However, there are still many aspects to this game which isolates its validity for being historically accurate.

There are components of Fortnite that do not seem very realistic or comparable to the Ancient World. When Cyrus the Great was conquering territories with his army, he would invade and then maintain control of each city. This would increase the size of the empire and the size of the population. In Fortnite, players would only invade a city, loot its resources, kill anyone else in the area, and then keep moving on to the next city. One would have no intention of cultivating the society, as they merely took what they needed and moved on. Around this time period, most people would conquer other civilizations by traveling to them by boat or by land. However in Fortnite, players jump out of a flying school bus, in order to parachute into their desired location.

The creators of Fortnite made these components different from history in order to make the game seem more interesting and appealing to modern day culture. They didn’t want to be like every other historical video game that tries to be as similar to the past as possible. Those types of games only appeal to a certain crowd of gamers. Fortnite on the other hand piques the interest of players by including characters with vibrant colored costumes and popular dance moves. Although it is not a valid way of examining history, it helps encourage thought and interest for the past. This is why Fortnite translates as a modern representation of the Persian Wars.

Kim Jong-Un vs. Ancient Tyrants

Ok, maybe this title is a bit misleading. Unfortunately, this is not an article depicting perhaps the greatest fictional showdown that could ever take place within the confines of this page. However, what I can offer is an analysis of how our society views the modern tyrant in comparison to tyrants from ancient civilizations. The differences are certainly distinct—more so than many people realize. We have become very comfortable with describing the modern tyrant as how Merriam Webster defines it: “a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally”. Contrary to our modern view of a tyrant, ancient civilizations, such as the Greeks, considered a tyrant to be “a monarch who has gained power in an unorthodox, but not necessarily wicked, way and who exercised a strong one-man rule that might be beneficent and popular” (Greek and Hellenistic Civilization). In fact, many Ancient Greek tyrants were known for their generosity. Greek tyrants have supported trade to boost the economy, colonized foreign lands to provide for growing populations, and engaged in a plethora of public works projects to ensure a higher standard of living in their cities (Greek and Hellenistic Civilization).

KJU

So what is the cause of such an incredible turnaround in the meaning of the word? Well, for starters, let’s look at North Korea—the epitome of modern tyranny. Was Kim Jong-Un elected into office? Nope. When numerous other individuals questioned his power, Kim took care of them pretty quick—this tyrant allegedly fed his uncle to dogs, had his premier of education killed for slouching and murdered his armed forces minister with an anti-aircraft gun (Stephens). That sounds like a pretty “unorthodox” way to come into power if you ask me. Kim gives tyrants a bad name—rather than caring for his people, like many ancient Greek tyrants, this modern tyrant allows his people to starve. In Bret Stephens’ article, “Kim Jong-Un and the Art of Tyranny”, Stephens writes, “Another lesson for tyrants: You do not subjugate a people by taking everything from them. You subjugate them by giving them something they know you can take away. Desperate people aren’t always obedient. Dependent people usually are”. Ancient Greek tyrants were often known for working to benefit the people—this modern tyrant has not given his people a shred of hope to hang on to, giving the word “tyrant” a whole new meaning

Blog Post #1

Maxwell Shuman

Professor Sagstetter

12 September 2018

While tyranny is a term that very clearly carries a negative connotation in today’s society, the word has not always been dictated with such disgust. In the era of the pre-democratic world, tyrants were elected as people to break up the hereditary lines that many countries had gained too much power and were no longer ruling with efficiency. Over time, this word has come to describe the likes of Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan, and Henry VIII. With characters such as these, it is not altogether shocking that the real meaning behind the word changed slightly. According to Richard M. Reinish II, author of “Autonomy on the Road to Tyranny,” tyranny in America has come to describe actions that would have liberties taken away from American citizens which are guaranteed to them in the Constitution of the United States. When approaching the term from a broader outlook, Reinish states that tyrants are “citizens who left nations whose traditions kept them from being all they could be” (Reinish 55). In a modern sense, I feel that this is a facile assessment of the effects that tyranny can have on a population when compared to the dramatic stigma with which it is often associated. According to Dictionary.com, tyranny is defined as “arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power.” Comparing these two points of view on the subject I believe that they are both somewhat along the right path that tyranny is an imbalance of power. However, where I slightly disagree with their statements is that I think tyrants are often originally beloved by at least a section of society and are ushered in during a period of need for an organization or political entity.

I think that the combination of these definitions aligns with the ancient definitions in some respects, but is lacking in others. Tyrants in the ancient world certainly ascertained a good amount of power and were given nations to rule; however, rights for the majority of people were far more limited than in today’s society and therefore were not taken or encroached upon to the magnitude that tyrants have in the modern age. Moreover, I believe that tyranny has gained a harsher connotation in the modern world, not because of worse treatment, but rather the change in the progression of human rights and a tyrant’s inability to recognize these rights.

Works Cited:

Reinish II, Richard M. “Autonomy on the Road to Tyranny.” Modern Age. Winter Edition. (2018): (55-62). Print.

“Dictionary.com.” Dictionary.com, September, 2018.

Modern vs. Ancient Tyranny

For ages, elected leaders of the self-governed “free world” have been terrified of tyrannical rulers spreading their “influence” among surrounding countries. The United States, in particular, has participated in multiple wars dedicated to ending tyrannical rule. Countries deemed as modern day tyrannies are thought to have an unstable, immoral, power-hungry leader who makes political decisions based only off of selfish gain.

According to ancient opinion, particularly the opinions of the ancient Greeks who lived under constant tyrannical rule, a tyrant is a powerful and enlightened leader dedicated to building a large, powerful, and prosperous nation. A tyrant was seen as a rational leader with great spheres of political and economic influence. Tyrants ruled with the intention of raising their nation above all others, even if it entailed invading neighboring countries. Nations, including ancient Greece, prospered under the reign of tyrants.

Unlike the ancient notion that tyranny can actually be a positive aspect, modern day society shuns the idea of a stable and morally sound tyranny. One article describes tyrants of being “often accompanied by cruelty and hedonism, from the sexual perversions of Nero to…rumors of Kim Jong-un killing his uncle by setting wild dogs upon him” (The Conversation). Recently, news reports have lashed out towards President Trump, stating that “the constitution was designed to prevent tyranny through a system of checks and balances, but in President Trump’s America, those safeguards are failing” (CNN). Modern day democracies see one-man actions taken by world leaders as a step closer to tyrannical forms of leadership. In general, modern day tyranny associates itself with corruption and selfish desire.

The modern definition of “tyrant” does not fit the ancient definition. This, however, does not mean that the term “tyrant” is used incorrectly in the context of most news sources. As the meaning of tyrant has changed over the many, many years since ancient Greece, so has the context in which it is used. The modern world is filled with democratic nations who now see tyranny as obsolete- almost to the point of it being called uncivilized. With the opinions of tyrants seen today, the use of the term “tyrant” in most news articles are, in current opinion, correct. If taken back to ancient Greece, however, there might be much disagreement of the word’s use.

Works Cited

Newell, Waller R. “To Defeat Tyranny Today, Look to the Past.” The Conversation, The Conversation, 10 Sept. 2018, theconversation.com/to-defeat-tyranny-today-look-to-the-past-81014.

Sachs, Jeffrey. “Trump Is Taking US down the Path to Tyranny.” CNN, Cable News Network, 24 July 2018, http://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/opinions/trump-is-taking-us-down-the-path-to-tyranny-sachs/index.html.

‘300’Historical Accuracy

I chose to analyze the movie “300” in order to gain an understanding of the portrayal of Persians and Trojans (Greeks) from the Persian Wars period of history. The movie contains both accurate and inaccurate scenes, and although the creator adds extra detail to the story, it can still be a good way to examine history.

Some of the accurate scenes include the warrior culture of Sparta, the brotherhood between Spartan warriors, and the unbalanced number of soldiers during the Battle of Thermopylae. In the movie, King Leonidas’ son is shown at a young age practicing his fighting skills. Both Leonidas and his wife are supportive of their son training to be a warrior and take pride in the fact that the boy will one day be Spartan. Another accurate aspect of the movie is the brotherhood between Spartan warriors. The men are prepared to die for each other without hesitation. In a famous scene in the movie, King Leonidas tells Xerxes, the Persian king, that even he is prepared to die for his men. This is a testament to how strong the bonds are between him and his soldiers. The last accurate aspect I observed from the movie was the size of each force present. Although the exact numbers may not have been accurate, the fact that the small Spartan force faced extremely larger Persian army is true.

The movie was inaccurate in portraying the types of Persian troops, the scale of both sides, and the meeting between the two kings. In the movie Xerxes sends all types of troops at the Spartans but to no avail. He uses men, animals, and even strange monsters. This is where the movie gets into fantasy. In his camp Xerxes has a fat man creature that has two blades instead of arms. Although it is interesting to watch, it is highly unlikely to be real. Another inaccurate part of the movie is the scale of both forces. The movie says the Persians had over a million troops but that is most likely an exaggeration for increased drama. The last inaccuracy I noticed was the meeting of the two kings. I find it unlikely that they would have met on the battlefield to discuss terms of surrender personally. A messenger most likely would have been sent.

The movie creator probably added these different aspects to enhance the plot and add more action for the audience. By adding animals that are larger than normal and monsters to the Persian army, the creator drives the point that the Persians are the bad guys and the Spartans are the good side. The Spartans are openly human so the audience can relate to them, while the Persians wear masks or have unhuman features (extremely large size, blade hands…). The various troop types also pushes the underdog story further. Having troops from around the world shows that Persia has vastly more resources than the Spartans. The size of both forces and the dramatic meeting between Xerxes and Leonidas again pushes the narrative of an underdog story to create more suspense for the audience.

Personally, I think movies such as “300” are excellent ways to describe history. Although some parts are fantasized, the bulk of the movie is fairly accurate and brought the Battle of Thermopylae into the public’s eye. For examining history, I believe the movie is a good starting point for research and examination but should not be used alone for information.

Blog #1

When portraying ancient cultures in modern media there are two common ways: first having the entire plot take place in the ancient culture and time or second, to bring the ancient culture alive in modern times. Rick Riordan has had great success with the second style of writing. His “Percy Jackson and the Olympians” series follow Percy, a teenager, and his adventures as a demigod around the world battling monsters and gods alike. Riordan brings the gods of ancient Greece and Roman cultures alive and occasionally gives them human forms. From Zeus to Hades to the Minotaur to Datalus, many of the gods and monsters in the Greek mythology make an appearance at some point in the series.

The accuracy of such novels can be debated for a long time because their base in mythology, which by definition, is a story which is used to explain a natural or social phenomenon involving supernatural or god-like beings. However, Riordan’s books do capture other parts of Greek culture accurately. One example is the traditional sacrifices and prayers to the gods. Across Greece, we have found evidence of alters and sacrifice to honor and gain favor from the gods. In Riordan’s books, at each meal the demigods offer a portion of their food into the fire for the gods, their parents. These books are pure fiction and there is no physical evidence that supernatural beings existed in ancient Greece. Riordan created this fictional world for the enjoyment of his readers. By bringing the gods to life and having them exist in a world and culture that is similar to the readers allows the reader to feel more connected and almost believe they are living in the same world. This sparks the interest of learning more about mythology and ancient cultures in many readers. The debate is whether this type of representation of ancient cultures can be considered a valid way of studying history. On one hand, this type of modernized storytelling is more engaging and interesting to the reader, but many parts are not portrayed accurately. I think that novels, such as Percy Jackson, and other modern sources are a great way to become interested in ancient history but one needs to study primary sources from the time period instead of 21st-century fictional writing in order to fully understand the history.

Blog Post 1: Tyranny

Jacob Hudson

The West in the Pre-Modern World

Blog Entry #1

When the first tyrants of the world came around, there was a different perspective on them then how they are viewed now. Back before the rise of democracy, a tyrant was still seen as a ruler that ruled over his people in a cruel, oppressive way and seized power with either brute force or it was inherited down. However, before democracy tyrants weren’t necessarily considered a bad thing like they are today. This was because tyrants back then still got a job done even if it meant treating their people like crap. Tyrants still were able to protect, and provide resources for their people, and in doing so there was never much of a bad connotation when it came to the term tyrant. When this new thing called democracy came around people saw how they could be treated, and decided tyrannies were no good and they wanted freedoms and their own rights. As bad as tyrannies are in today’s world, many countries are still led by brutal tyrants. An example of this is the current tyrant leading Sudan named Omer Bashir. Bashir is a true example of a post-democracy tyrant because he oppresses his people, does nothing for them to support them, does not listen to their cries for help and change, and came into power by leading a revolt against the elected government of Sudan.

Bashir is such a terrible tyrant that in 2009, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for his arrest as a result of crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and the killing of 300,000 civil non-combatant Sudanese people (Suleiman). In my opinion, if you are using the definition of the term tyrant before democracy came around then calling Bashir a tyrant does not make sense. Tyrants before democracy still did things to provide for their people like provide defense and protection in case of an attack, as well as food and resources. Bashir, however, does not care for his people. An example of this would be how Bashir fails to recognize his failing policies and is doing nothing to stop the collapse of his local policy as told by Mahmoud Suleiman. Bashir is certainly a tyrant by today’s standards, because of how terribly he treats his people and how he rules by force.

Suleiman, Mahmoud A. “The Arrogant and Tyrant Omer Bashir of Sudan Remains Cruel and Beyond the Borders.” Genocide in Darfur – How the Horror Began – Sudan Tribune: Plural News and Views on Sudan, 27 Feb. 2018, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article64827.

Tyranny in Modern Context

Given the democratic, ‘by the people and for the people’ reputation of the United States of America, President Donald Trump’s election to the oval office was controversial. Despite losing the popular vote by almost three million to Hillary Clinton, Trump won three hundred and six electoral votes, thus earning the title of President of the United States of America. Jeffrey Sachs, author of the CNN opinion editorial “Trump is taking US down the path to tyranny,” claims the checks and balances system is failing. He references Trump’s nondisclosure after his summit meeting with Vladimir Putin, such as Putin’s invitation to Washington. Further, Sachs criticizes Trump’s invocation of executive authority to impose a travel ban on several Islamic states, to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement despite treaty-bound obligations, and to extend the presence of US troops in Syria without Congressional oversight. Sachs asserts that Trump’s presidency is becoming tyrannical because he is taking advantage of “the relentless growth of the national security state” and “the rise of corporate power in driving federal policy” to quiet opposition from Congress and the Supreme Court (Sachs).

According to the ancient definition, a tyrant was a person who gained power in an unorthodox way, and whose rule could very well be beneficent and popular. President Trump indeed won the presidency in an atypical way; although he is not the first president to win the electoral college but not the popular vote, he exposed a flaw in the electoral system. He utilizes his powers of executive authority to fulfill his policies, such as the travel ban and military presence in Syria. However, President Trump does not exercise a true one-man rule; he is constrained by Congress and the Supreme Court in the checks and balances system. He is also responsible to account for the opinions of the American population, as the government still functions as a democracy. If he fails, he could be impeached.

An ancient tyrant drew support from the politically powerless to include the newly wealthy and poor farmers. On the contrary, Trump’s constituency includes a majority of formally educated people who are generally conservative and part of the working middle class (Democracy Fund Voter Study Group).

A tyrant was also usually a member of the ruling aristocracy with a personal grievance, and who has military ability. Trump embodies this definition as a maverick in the corporate world and executive director of Trump Industries. He ran for president because of personal ambition and belief in his capability to satisfy the job. He also has military experience from his attendance of the New York Military Academy and is inherently Commander in Chief.

I believe that the term ‘tyrant’ is used as hyperbole in Sachs’s article to enforce his bias. Trump has promoted a strong executive branch and utilized many executive powers; however, the government is not the perfect definition of a tyranny by virtue of the three branches. The power still ultimately lies with the people, and people are using their freedom of speech to give their opinions (and to convince others that their perspective is correct) on the presidency.

Works Cited

“The Five Types of Trump Voters.” Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, 30 Jan. 2018, http://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/the-five-types-trump-voters.

Blog Post 1: Ancient History in Modern Media

Find some modern representation of the ancient world from cultures we’ve studied so far—a movie, video game, novel (preferably one you’ve already read), and evaluate its historical accuracy. What parts are accurate? Inaccurate? Why do you think the authors/creators made the choices that they did when their version differs from history? Do you think this is a valid choice/way of examining history? Think about things like piquing people’s interest, artistic integrity, etc.

Blog Post 1: Tyranny Ancient and Modern

Given what you now know about how the ancient (pre-democratic) definition of tyranny differs from the modern (post-rise of democracy), find an article published within the last 6 months that deals with the term and evaluate it. In your opinion, is the term “tyrant” used correctly in context? Why or why not? Would this fit the ancient definition of tyranny?